Summary Calendar Gdavid Westfall Family Limited Partnership v. Tommy Parks

1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
_______________________________________
No. 00-10388
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_______________________________________
G DAVID WESTFALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; G. DAVID WESTFALL;
CHRISTINA WESTFALL; JOHN WESTFALL; STEFANI PODVIN; JOHN D.
PODVIN; Individually and as members of the limited partnership
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TOMMY PARKS, ET AL,
Defendants,
JAMES JONES AND NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:96-CV-3301-L)
_______________________________________
January 26, 2001
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The Westfall Family Limited Partnership owned a herd of
cattle kept on nine tracts of land in Ellis and Navarro Counties
in North Texas. In 1996, an official from the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“the SPCA”) reported to the
Ellis and Navarro County Sheriffs’` Departments that the Westfall
herd was being mistreated. The departments investigated the SPCA

-- 1 of 2 --

official’s charge and, finding it to be well-founded, seized more
than 175 head of cattle and two donkeys owned by the Westfall
Family Limited Partnership. Appellants brought suit against the
counties and individual officials claiming violations of their
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United
States Constitution and violations of applicable state law. The
district court barred suit against appellee-Jones based on
qualified immunity and granted summary judgment in favor of
appellee-Navarro County based on a lack of policy or custom in
the county of seizing property pursuant to a warrant lacking
probable cause. This appeal followed.
Having reviewed the record, the briefs, and the
recommendation of the magistrate as adopted by the district court
in its order, we agree that summary judgment in favor of
appellees was appropriate. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --